Opinion
23-mc-80263-VKD
11-27-2023
IN RE SUBPOENA FACETEC, INC. SUBPOENA TO JUMIO CORPORATION IN THE MATTER FACETEC, INC., Plaintiff, v. IPROOV LTD., Defendant.
INTERIM ORDER RE MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA
RE: DKT. NO. 1
VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Non-party Jumio Corporation (“Jumio”) moves to quash and/or for a protective order regarding a subpoena for the production of documents served by FaceTec, Inc. (“FaceTec”). Dkt. No. 1. The subpoena seeks discovery in connection with the matter FaceTec, Inc. v. iProov Ltd., No. 2:21-cv-02252-RFB-BNW in the District of Nevada. In that action, FaceTec asserts claims against iProov Ltd. (“iProov”) for patent infringement, breach of contract, and intentional interference with contractual relations See Dkt. No. 1-2. Jumio is a customer of iProov, and its principal argument in support of the motion to quash is that much, if not all, of the documents FaceTec seeks from Jumio could be obtained from iProov. Dkt. No. 1 at 3, 5-8. FaceTec opposes Jumio's motion. Dkt. No. 5. Among other things, FaceTec argues that it has already sought from iProov the documents it seeks from Jumio, but that iProov has refused to produce this information. Id. at 7-8.
On November 21, 2023, the Court held a hearing on the motion. Dkt. No. 10. Based on the discussion at the hearing, it appears that at least some of the matters raised in support of and in opposition to Jumio's motion-specifically, relevance and proportionality-are the subject of a motion to compel filed by FaceTec for discovery from iProov, the defendant, in the District of Nevada, and the parties are presently briefing that dispute. See id. The discussion at the hearing also revealed that counsel for Jumio and FaceTec did not confer sufficiently about the scope of FaceTec's subpoena to Jumio in advance of Jumio's motion to quash. Id.
Accordingly, the Court orders the parties to confer regarding this dispute and to report back to the Court no later than January 15, 2024 regarding (1) the status of this dispute, (2) the status of the motion to compel pending before the District of Nevada, and (3) what if any matters remain to be decided with respect to Jumio's motion. The Court defers ruling on Jumio's motion at this time.
IT IS SO ORDERED.